Author Topic: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man  (Read 114633 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Janet_W.

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2005, 06:14:15 PM »
Nicholas has been criticized for overplaying the family card--i.e., using his attractive children in numerous "photo ops"--for reasons of public relations. However, since he was honest in his love for his children, I can't "ding" him too extensively for this.

Royals almost always have realized that their job is, in large part, one of public relations. Nicholas was understandably proud of his family and his "family values," and to quote the lyrics of a classic song, "You've got to accentuate the positive . . . " (Or, an even older chestnut from my Sunday School days: "Hide it [one's light] under a bushel? No! I'm going to let it shine!") The public seemed to enjoy images of the Imperial Family, and I think it was a fairly harmless thing to do . . . tho' personally speaking, I would have been terribly bored by all those photo sessions!

Offline RichC

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2005, 12:01:50 AM »
Quote
In what way did they appear as not very good parents?


They say that the children, "endured sad, shadowy lives"; that Nicholas was absent most of the time because of the "demands of the throne" and Alexandra was a cold, distant and domineering mother.

The stated goal of the authors of this book is to expose the Romanov's as they really were and the picture they paint isn't very pretty.  But I think they overreached.   Also, I think they try to make Nicholas look kind of stupid; for example they say that he never read War and Peace until he was locked up in the Ipatiev House. That jumped out at me because Nicholas wrote a letter to his mother in November 1898, describing how he read War and Peace to Alix while she was pregnant with Tatiana.  A minor point, I suppose, but why is it in there?

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2005, 11:51:52 AM »
I'm sure even looking at the photographs of them that the children didn't lead 'dark shadowy lives.' Not many princesses breast fed their own children but Alix did & even Nicky wrote about it to QV...that must be taking an interest in them for a start. And the details about every aspect of their lives in Alix's letters to Nicky show them both (parents) to be anything but distant.

Offline RichC

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2005, 06:15:07 PM »
I was thinking more about the "sad, shadowy lives" comment and it occurs to me that it could more properly be applied to Rosemary Kennedy, who died recently at a rest home in Wisconsin.

Annie

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2005, 10:09:55 AM »
Quote

I didn't agree with their judgements either. A lot of people didn't.



Add me to those who also don't agree and don't know why anyone would want to defame their parenting now. I've never seen that ever mentioned before in any book, and many have been written on them, many by people who knew them personally.

Annie

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2005, 12:28:32 PM »
Another thing on the 'sad and shadowy lives', I've heard the testimony on that came from Bolsheviks who held them prisoner, so you can't judge by people who hated them and wouldn't be fair in their description. Also, aren't the lives of all in captivity 'sad and shadowy?' It isn't fair to ruin the good rep of two wonderful parents after the fact :(

Offline Angie_H

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • http://booboogbs.deviantart.com My Colored Pics!
    • View Profile
    • Eigna
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2005, 10:38:13 AM »
I've been reading a biography of Queen Mary & George V. Among royal families I would have to say N & A were unusual in the way that they had more contact and interaction with their children. From what I read Mary & George isolated their children too (not much contact with others) but it also seems like they totally ignored their children, George's only interaction with them is when he called them into his library to reprimand them. I am sure N & A's children had more happy memories of their parents then George & Mary's

strom

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #37 on: February 17, 2005, 05:51:26 PM »
There is reason to believe that the Emperor was not crushed by the news of Father Gregori's "disappearance" and may have actually been pleased.  The Imperial family tried to get him to leave the capital, I think, more than once and to stay away.  However, when the facts were revealed and that individuals very close to Him personally and to the Empress were involved, there was never any question but that the crime was a very serious breach of Imperial protocol --of laissez majeste.  

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2024
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2005, 06:03:51 PM »
Quote
when 1900 started I believe the span of days between the two calendars went up a day from 12 to 13.

Would it not have been 1901 when the gap increased, since that was the start of the 20th Century? I guess it depends on whether 1900 was a leap year in either of the two calendars.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2005, 06:07:24 PM »
Quote
I have seen references to Nicholas's birthday being on both May 18th or May 19th. Which is correct?


Sarai, when I was in St Petersburg last May, we stumbled upon a big gathering of people in front of the Cathedral on Spilt Blood who were carrying icons of the IF and singing, etc. When we asked what was going on, we were told that they are commemorating Nicholas II's birthday. It was May 18th, but they told us that his actual birthday is the next day. So maybe May 19th is the correct date? Or maybe they weren't sure themeselves  ;).



Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2024
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2005, 06:12:27 PM »
I guess it could be confusing. But since the Russian Church uses the old calendar, the should 'celebrate' his birthday on the ecclesiastical 6 May, which these days on the secular calendar is, of course, the 19th of May.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2005, 06:14:55 PM »
Quote
I guess it could be confusing. But since the Russian Church uses the old calendar, the should 'celebrate' his birthday on the ecclesiastical 6 May, which these days on the secular calendar is, of course, the 19th of May.


Georgiy, when is Job's day according to the Russian orthodox calendar? Whenever that is, that's when Nicholas's birthday should be, since he always said he was born on that day.. Unless it is different every year, like Easter  ???...

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2024
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #42 on: February 17, 2005, 06:22:25 PM »
May 6 on the ecclesiastical calendar. In the 1800s, this coincided with May 18 in the west, these days it is May 19, but on the Church calendar it is still the same old May 6.

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2024
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #43 on: February 17, 2005, 06:23:27 PM »
It's confusingly straight-forward. I'm used to having two dates in my head - both being the same day, but with a 13 day time difference!

samcr

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2005, 06:49:17 AM »
Hi

I think michael would of made a far better emperor of Russia , than his brother who was weak willed and listen far to much to his soppy wife, I cant believe the family  on a whole didnt get together sooner (more power in a group!) and some how sent the empress away!